Looks like no one has brought up yet the tension between Mustachianism and EA. They both advise frugality, but the theoretical Mustachian works the minimum time necessary to become financially independent and then retires to do less or no work for pay, because their priority is freedom. The theoretical EA person would work all their life because their priority is maximizing the good done/money donated.
I find arguments for both of these philosophies compelling, but they can’t be reconciled: either you choose to focus your energy towards helping yourself, a (probably) upper-middle-class American, or you’re altruistic and focus your energy towards helping the most needy. Yes, even altruists spend some money on themselves, and even Mustachians typically give some money to others, but there’s a basic difference in what your main goal is.
A secondary criticism is that Mustachians tend to denigrate the role of work in people’s lives (oh isn’t it terrible that I have to put on uncomfortable clothes and drive far away to work with people I don’t like), BUT, if you look at retired Mustachians or people who are rich enough not to work, typically they just find another line of work. Having some sort of work is crucial for most people’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, social lives, and even physical health.
The Mustachian riposte to this is that, even if you want to work, isn’t it better if you don’t have to? I agree, but I think the honest description of their movement is that it’s not about retiring early, which is only a true goal for very few of us—it’s just about getting rich.
Looks like no one has brought up yet the tension between Mustachianism and EA… and then retires to do less or no work for pay, because their priority is freedom.
MMM only advocates less or no work for pay after retirement to the extent that work for pay makes you unhappy. See First Retire… Then Get Rich. He also is a fanofEA. More specifically, he supports the idea of first saving up your money so that you can retire, and then spending your time on EA once you’re retired.
The Mustachian riposte to this is that, even if you want to work, isn’t it better if you don’t have to?
I think the honest description of their movement is that it’s not about retiring early, which is only a true goal for very few of us—it’s just about getting rich.
I think his position is that it’s ultimately about the freedom to do what makes you happy. Most of the time your normal career isn’t that, but if it is it makes sense to just retire in your mind. For everyone else, it makes sense to keep busy doing what you enjoy, whether or not that involves making money.
>He also is a fanofEA. More specifically, he supports the idea of first saving up your money so that you can retire, and then spending your time on EA once you’re retired.
You see, though, how there’s a basic conflict between those philosophies. For the Mustachian, giving to charity only comes after you’re a millionaire yourself (or however you define FI).
I don’t think this is representative among established EAs (although admittedly common among newcomers)
I think it’s real bad that EAs ever pushed such a narrow conception of what EA means, and I think it’s a fairly common, although not necessarily majority viewpoint among EAs that donating as soon as you can is a mistake.)
Ah, I see what you mean. Although my understanding of the EA movement is that it’s very acceptable, or even advisable to spend enough on yourself so that you’re reasonably comfortable, ie. living a Mustachian lifestyle. In which case the difference is just a matter of timing: a Mustachian first puts their money towards their own retirement and then puts it towards EA, whereas an EA puts it towards both in parallel. That doesn’t seem like a large difference in philosophy to me. What do you think? Am I thinking about this the wrong way?
after you’re a millionaire yourself (or however you define FI)
This is tangential, but $1M seems like it’s on the high end. I think that a lot of Mustachians would be retiring at more like $500-700k.
Looks like no one has brought up yet the tension between Mustachianism and EA. They both advise frugality, but the theoretical Mustachian works the minimum time necessary to become financially independent and then retires to do less or no work for pay, because their priority is freedom. The theoretical EA person would work all their life because their priority is maximizing the good done/money donated.
I find arguments for both of these philosophies compelling, but they can’t be reconciled: either you choose to focus your energy towards helping yourself, a (probably) upper-middle-class American, or you’re altruistic and focus your energy towards helping the most needy. Yes, even altruists spend some money on themselves, and even Mustachians typically give some money to others, but there’s a basic difference in what your main goal is.
A secondary criticism is that Mustachians tend to denigrate the role of work in people’s lives (oh isn’t it terrible that I have to put on uncomfortable clothes and drive far away to work with people I don’t like), BUT, if you look at retired Mustachians or people who are rich enough not to work, typically they just find another line of work. Having some sort of work is crucial for most people’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, social lives, and even physical health.
The Mustachian riposte to this is that, even if you want to work, isn’t it better if you don’t have to? I agree, but I think the honest description of their movement is that it’s not about retiring early, which is only a true goal for very few of us—it’s just about getting rich.
MMM only advocates less or no work for pay after retirement to the extent that work for pay makes you unhappy. See First Retire… Then Get Rich. He also is a fan of EA. More specifically, he supports the idea of first saving up your money so that you can retire, and then spending your time on EA once you’re retired.
Right. MMM talks about this in Retire in your mind even if you love your job.
I think his position is that it’s ultimately about the freedom to do what makes you happy. Most of the time your normal career isn’t that, but if it is it makes sense to just retire in your mind. For everyone else, it makes sense to keep busy doing what you enjoy, whether or not that involves making money.
>He also is a fan of EA. More specifically, he supports the idea of first saving up your money so that you can retire, and then spending your time on EA once you’re retired.
You see, though, how there’s a basic conflict between those philosophies. For the Mustachian, giving to charity only comes after you’re a millionaire yourself (or however you define FI).
I don’t think this is representative among established EAs (although admittedly common among newcomers)
I think it’s real bad that EAs ever pushed such a narrow conception of what EA means, and I think it’s a fairly common, although not necessarily majority viewpoint among EAs that donating as soon as you can is a mistake.)
My own article on this is here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3ijnLaws7mCEogD6H/earning-to-save-give-1-save-10
Ah, I see what you mean. Although my understanding of the EA movement is that it’s very acceptable, or even advisable to spend enough on yourself so that you’re reasonably comfortable, ie. living a Mustachian lifestyle. In which case the difference is just a matter of timing: a Mustachian first puts their money towards their own retirement and then puts it towards EA, whereas an EA puts it towards both in parallel. That doesn’t seem like a large difference in philosophy to me. What do you think? Am I thinking about this the wrong way?
This is tangential, but $1M seems like it’s on the high end. I think that a lot of Mustachians would be retiring at more like $500-700k.